The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the prescribed timelines and procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the consequences of non-compliance, leading to the nullity of the Section 6 declaration and the lapse of the entire acquisition proceedings.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“…..to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, in Survey Nos.878-1B, Survey No.877-2, Survey No.879-2B and Survey No.897-2B of an extent of Acs.2.12 cents, Acs. 1.13 cents, Acs. 1.78 cents and Acs.1.06 cents, total Acs.6.12 cents of Kaligiri village, SPSR Nellore District and the purported award dated 03.08.2016, for being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the procedure enunciated under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 and unconstitutional and set aside the same……”

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they own respective extents of the subject property. The 2nd respondent issued Section 4(1) notification dated 02.11.2009 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published in Surya Daily Newspaper on 12.11.2009 in R.C.G.6/4838/2009 comprising of a total extent of Ac.51-10 cents for the purpose of extension of Srikolanu Distributary and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Before publishing the notification in the newspaper itself, the 2nd respondent issued Section 6 declaration on 03.11.2009. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Old Act. Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notices, the husband of the first petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.2050 of 2011 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.10357 of 2011. Initially, this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Section 9(3) and 10 notices of the respondents on 04.03.2011. This Court by orders dated 25.03.2015 allowed the above said writ petitions by setting aside the Section 6 declaration dated 06.10.2009 and the respondents were given liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by conducting enquiry under Section 5-A Land Acquisition Act and proceed further in the acquisition proceedings.

It is the further case of the petitioners that, it was the specific case of the petitioners in the above writ petitions that invoking urgency clause under Section 17 is illegal as the respondents failed to take possession of the land within 3 months as prescribed under Section 17(5) (a) from the date of issuance of 4(1) notification. According to 17(5)(b) of the Act, if the Collector fails to take possession of the land within 3 months, the provisions of Section 5-A shall apply, and in all such cases the period of thirty days referred in Section 5-A shall be restored from the date of expiration of three months specified in clause (a). After disposal of the above writ petitions, the petitioners did not receive any notices from the respondents about the enquiry under Section 5-A of the old Act, though this Court has specifically directed the respondents to follow section 5-A of the old Act. There is an elaborate procedure for making declaration under Section 6 of the old Act. After thorough enquiries of the petitioners, they came to know that a notice was prepared but not issued under Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 dated 14.09.2015 of the 6th respondent, which was not served on any of the petitioners. The petitioners could secure a copy of the notice and on perusal of the same it was made to understand that the notice was issued to all the petitioners directing them to appear in person or by authorized agent on 17.10.2015 before him (6th respondent) to put a statement in writing signed by the petitioners or their authorized agents showing the nature of interest in lands, the amount of compensati